roam_rename_page

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this tool destructive and idempotent. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by requiring a call to roam_get_guidelines and noting that conventions affect reads as well as writes. This provides behavioral nuance not captured in the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence conveys a critical prerequisite but is slightly convoluted with 'reads included.' Overall, it is compact and earns its place, though the phrasing could be clearer.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple rename tool with a complete input schema, output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description adds the essential prerequisite and identification method. It does not explain error conditions, but these are not critical for correct tool usage in most contexts.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, including guidance on using old_title or uid. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the phrase 'current title or UID,' which merely mirrors the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Rename a page by changing its title.' It also specifies the identification method ('by current title or UID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_page or update_page_markdown.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit usage guidance by instructing the agent to call roam_get_guidelines before using this tool, including a rationale about conventions. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.